Talk:The Deadly Years (episode)
Passenger? Why is Yeoman Doris Atkins listed as a "passsenger?" She was a member of the Enterprise's crew, wasn't she? Sir Rhosis 06:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Oh, for pete's sake ... :* The ''Enterprise seems to be carrying insect life in addition to humanoids in this episode. Note the fly crossing to the left of Captain Kirk's head in the later scene when he, Spock, and McCoy surmise that Chekov's immunity is related to his surge of adrenaline on the planet's surface.'' A fly? A freakin' fly? Removed. -- Bridge 11:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Removed * During the filming of this episode the cast and crew widely believed that this was to be their final episode, as at the time they were facing impending cancellation. Can be restored if a citation can be found. - 02:55, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :* One interesting curiosity regarding the fate of the characters. Kirk, McCoy, Scott and Spock seem to be doomed and will shortly die of aging. Uhura, Sulu, Checkov and Chapel would outlive them. During the tng-era, the second group of characters have their fates undecided, and are likely dead, while the first group menaged to survive. :This is complete speculation and I don't have a clue what the point of this note is.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 10:53, May 16, 2010 (UTC) Kirk and Too Short a Season I removed the following: * Ironically, Admiral Kirk was allegedly supposed to have been the title character who goes from older to younger and dies at the end in "Too Short a Season" (rather than the -like affair the episode would actually show, the story would've had Kirk return to Neural hoping to end the conflict begun in ). This was removed from the page because no citation turned up there - see .– Cleanse ( talk | ) 00:19, March 25, 2010 (UTC) :Maybe I'm just a dense moron, but... what does that have to do with this episode? ??? leandar 02:03, March 25, 2010 (UTC) The removed note followed this one on the page: * The script called for the aged Kirk to run from sickbay to the bridge, and gradually grow younger until he arrived. But as director Joseph Pevney told Allan Asherman in ''The Star Trek Interview Book, the slow speech patterns and actions of the aging Enterprise personnel were making the episode run long. So Kirk's reverse aging scenes were cut. However the "aging scene from older to younger" would be used in on Admiral Mark Jameson.'' You're right though, Kirk and Too Short a Season is irrelevant to this page even if it were true. I should have made that more explicit; I just put a comment on this talk page to record the note removed. You're not a dense moron. ;-) – Cleanse ( talk | ) 03:32, March 25, 2010 (UTC) Thanks. :) --leandar 04:16, March 25, 2010 (UTC) One week to live? If they are aging around 30 years per day, and McCoy believes they will die in less than a week, does it mean that by the 23th century a Human is capable of living 240 years? Or was he talking about Spock? If they were aging between 20/30 years a day, anyone know for how much time they suffered between the landing and being cured? I would say at least 3 days, but it could easily be six or seven. Any thoughts? 240 for a human, I believe it´s too much. They would die in less than a week, probably. The fact is, they aged in different proportions. Galway aged very fast, as well as Spock for a Vulcan. Kirk was probably intended to age a lot more than the actor allowed them to show. I don´t know for how much the 4 suffered, but they sure suffered a lot. Maybe! When the original series was being produced, they were uncertain of the Century. Some episodes even led credence to the theory that it was 700 years in the future. Maybe the writers believed that by the 27th Century, men would be able to live for 250 years. So, from this perspective, the 4 may have endured the suffering for 5 or 6 days. Probably the most depressing week of their lives. Removed * Despite the clearly coed nature of Starfleet, Commodore Stocker refers to the Enterprise crew as "the men" while explaining his actions to Kirk after the ship has escaped the Neutral Zone. The above was removed by an anon user today, I presume as a nitpick.--31dot 20:03, October 15, 2011 (UTC) As the episode previous to this episode "Friday's Child" was set in 2267 and the episode after this episode, "The Trouble with Tribbles" was set in 2267, wouldn't this episode also be placed in 2267? :Please see the answer you were given for your similar question at Talk:Obsession (episode). 31dot (talk) 08:27, May 17, 2015 (UTC) Continuity An interesting note could be derived from this. . It mentions the incident here as a precedent. --LauraCC (talk) 20:04, January 8, 2016 (UTC)